Using interventions to reduce seclusion and mechanical restraint use in adult psychiatric units: an integrative review (original) (raw)
Related papers
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 2010
This review examines the nature and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the use of mechanical restraint and seclusion among adult psychiatric inpatients. Thirty-six post-1960 empirical studies were identified. The interventions were diverse, but commonly included new restraint or seclusion policies, staffing changes, staff training, case review procedures, or crisis management initiatives. Most studies reported reduced levels of mechanical restraint and/or seclusion, but the standard of evidence was poor. The research did not address which programme components were most successful. More attention should be paid to understanding how interventions work, particularly from the perspective of nursing staff, an issue that is largely overlooked.
The Distribution and Frequency of Seclusion and/or Restraint among Psychiatric Inpatients
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2010
This paper reports on the frequency and distribution of seclusion or restraint (SR) episodes among 1,266 adult inpatients at a state psychiatric hospital during the 2004 calendar year. Data on the concentration of SR episodes over patients and time can assist in planning alternative, recoveryoriented treatment models. Fifteen percent (N=194) of patients experienced seclusion or restraint. Sixty-three percent of all seclusion hours were concentrated among only ten patients. Likewise, the ten patients with the most restraint hours constituted nearly 65% of total restraint hours for the year and 48% of all restraint episodes. Variables accessible through administrative data accounted for modest seclusion and restraint variance. A comprehensive strategy to prevent SR episodes requires tailored interventions targeted to known high-risk individuals and development of general hospital-wide alternatives to SR. General alternatives require greater attention to staff education, administrative oversight, de-escalation and debriefing practices, patient involvement, and other recovery-oriented practices to reduce or eliminate use of seclusion and restraint.
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2010
Objective The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions. Methods Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas. Results There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries. Conclusions Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.
A Case Study: Seclusion and Restraint in Psychiatric Care
Clinical Nursing Research, 2017
A wide breadth of research has recognized that seclusion and restraint affects patients, staff, and organizations alike. Therefore, it is essential to understand the viewpoints of all stakeholders to improve practices. The study aimed to understand the context in which seclusion and restraint practices are employed based on the perceptions of staff and inpatients in a psychiatric ward. A case study was performed using a participatory approach. Methods included a 56-hr immersion in the practice setting and individual interviews with staff and patients (n = 17). The main themes discussed were patient characteristics (etiology of the violence, difficult experience), staff characteristics (feelings of safety, rationalization of seclusion use), and environmental characteristics. Both explicit (e.g., hospital protocol) and implicit (e.g., ward rules) standards seem to influence seclusion and restraint management. Our results point toward the potential for developing postseclusion and restraint review in which both patient and staff perspectives are taken into account.
Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric treatment settings: regulation, case law, and risk management
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 2011
Changing federal regulations, civil rights and malpractice cases, and new treatment methods have influenced the use of restraint and seclusion (R&S) in inpatient psychiatric treatment settings, such that restraint and seclusion today are among the most highly regulated practices in psychiatry. Despite increased pressure from regulatory bodies and litigation, the use of R&S remains controversial and risky. These procedures can compromise safety if performed incorrectly or monitored inadequately, but intervention by restraint or seclusion may be necessary to maintain safety on the treatment unit, especially during emergencies. Case law and medical research have demonstrated the importance of a patient-focused, treatment-oriented approach toward risk management. Analysis of specific clinical scenarios can help to develop risk mitigation strategies that are therapeutically conceptualized rather than driven by regulation. Insights drawn from clinical cases that have resulted in litigation can offer an opportunity to develop an approach oriented to patient care from a clinical or risk management perspective. In this article, we seek to provide a foundation for evaluation of current protocols, an analysis of adverse R&S events, and strategies to minimize risk.